***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[PY]

Ruffling McGrath up bigtime now.

Did that hit his grill?

 

[andyc]

mmhmm, so you're telling me that this game isn't going to be recognised or recorded by anyone and in fact this game is merely a figment of our collective imaginations?

mate, i could record my backyard cricket game, but it won't make it imortant.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Actually, it's played in four of ten countries (England, SA, Pakistan, Sri Lanka), and I bet NZ will catch on soon.

Right, less than half. Anyway, I'm not a fan of the format but I realise many people are. It doesn't suddenly make it an established international format of equal worth to ODIs.

 

[Adamc]

Anyway, on another note, what did people think of it as an international format?

Personally, I spent the whole time wishing it was a 50 over game and wouldn't be over in an hour or two, and I absolutely hate that stupid free hit thing in international cricket. The strokeplay was pretty exciting, but nothing more than what one would see in an ODI game.

Anyone particularly enjoy it (aside from Jamee)?

This will no doubt be regarded as sour grapes, but even before Australia started batting I thought it went by far too quickly.

Much of my enjoyment of cricket is derived from appreciation of skills rather than simply seeing sixes flying all over the place, and there wasn't really all that much skill on display. Batsmen on both sides were basically slogging (England were very good at it, I should add), with some improvisation, but it wasn't terribly attractive cricket IMO.

I also think the free hit idea is rather silly. don't see the point in further punishing the bowler. Apart from that, I simply don't like the idea that the innings is over in one hour. It may work for other sports, but I don't think it works for cricket. Obviously the crowds disagree with me though!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

mmhmm, so you're telling me that this game isn't going to be recognised or recorded by anyone and in fact this game is merely a figment of our collective imaginations?

Err, of course it will be, but it doesn't make 20/20 a legitimate international format! That's like suggesting that when the first ever ODI was played in the early 70s it was of equal worth to the Ashes series in the same year!

It wasn't an established international format, and regardless of the fact that the players obviously tried to win, it was not a game of huge significance in the scheme of cricket at the time. ODIs today are fairly important (although obviously not as much as tests), but 20/20 is a carnival hit out before the real thing, and until more of the games are played and the players start to place more worth on it, that won't change.

I mean, New Zealand wore wigs in the first one, for crying out loud!

 

[andyc]

This will no doubt be regarded as sour grapes, but even before Australia started batting I thought it went by far too quickly.

Much of my enjoyment of cricket is derived from appreciation of skills rather than simply seeing sixes flying all over the place, and there wasn't really all that much skill on display. Batsmen on both sides were basically slogging (England were very good at it, I should add), with some improvisation, but it wasn't terribly attractive cricket IMO.

I also think the free hit idea is rather silly. don't see the point in further punishing the bowler. Apart from that, I simply don't like the idea that the innings is over in one hour. It may work for other sports, but I don't think it works for cricket. Obviously the crowds disagree with me though!

i agree with you there. must be the purist in me dying to get out

 

[Jamee999]

We won, yay.

I think we've just used up our "Wins against Australia" quota for the summer though

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Right, less than half. Anyway, I'm not a fan of the format but I realise many people are. It doesn't suddenly make it an established international format of equal worth to ODIs.

Cricinfo recording statistics from it? BBC covering it on the radio?

Personally, the only time I can really appreciate ODIs are in the last ten overs of a run-chase - there's often no uncertainty in it otherwise. Don't see much difference between that and a Twenty20 game. But that's just me...

 

[andyc]

We won, yay.

thank god. the suspense was killing me

 

[PY]

Aggers has come up with another suggestion of making Champions Trophy into this because you could have three games in a day and makes more money than it would in the OD format.

Thoughts?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

100 run win in the end. End's this Australian teams chances of matching the invincibles on the third hurdle.

 

[Blaze]

mmhmm, so you're telling me that this game isn't going to be recognised or recorded by anyone and in fact this game is merely a figment of our collective imaginations?

Mate even a game of scrabble is more exciting than watching a game od 20/20.

20/20 is crap. It has been invented to draw people to the games who aren't cricket fans. People who just like the 4s and 6s. It is useless and the novelty will wear off (i hope)

 

[Adamc]

Maybe Freddie remembers what Lee did to Tudor and/or doesn't like Lee anyway and wants to return the favour?

Or he's trying to rile Lee into bowling bouncers at him in the proper games which is one of Freddie's strongest areas.

I think I'd go with the first (not that I agree with it because I was a big critic of Lee when he did that) because Freddie's that kind of guy.

I can't remember whether or not Lee was bowling bouncers to Tudor before the one which hit him (he probably was), but Tudor completely ducked into the one that did hit him, to be fair. Brett Lee does have a habit of bowling bouncers to tailenders though, and i'm not his biggest fan anyway. I don't really have a problem with Flintoff bowling bouncers, all of the Australian tail (except McGrath) are capable enough of defending themselves.

 

[andyc]

Cricinfo recording statistics from it? BBC covering it on the radio?

Personally, the only time I can really appreciate ODIs are in the last ten overs of a run-chase - there's often no uncertainty in it otherwise. Don't see much difference between that and a Twenty20 game. But that's just me...

no, i just don't much like it. for one, wickets don't matter that much, because the batsmen are just gonna keep slogging. in an ODI or test, when a batsmen's out, there's a big change to innings, or even game. here, its just 'so what'

 

[andyc]

100 run win in the end. End's this Australian teams chances of matching the invincibles on the third hurdle.

unlucky for this team that the invincibles won all their twenty20 games, huh

 

[Jamee999]

Hey, you're right.

What a stupid idea that someone may enjoy cricket.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Cricinfo recording statistics from it? BBC covering it on the radio?

Personally, the only time I can really appreciate ODIs are in the last ten overs of a run-chase - there's often no uncertainty in it otherwise. Don't see much difference between that and a Twenty20 game. But that's just me...

You have time to craft an innings in an ODI. 50 overs is a fair amount of time to bat... there's varying tactical approaches in the game. You can bat for a while and get yourself set, you can slog, whatever. There's varying roles for the players, with some batsmen specialising in devastating hitting, some in building an innings, some in nudging ones and twos, and so on. It's true that wickets are of lesser value in ODIs compared to tests, but they are still of SOME value. A bowler can get a decent spell in and have an extended battle with a single batsman. There is a chance for batsmen who are not big hitters to play match-turning innings (a player like Michael Bevan would never have existed in 20 over cricket, for example). None of these things are true of 20/20.

 

[andyc]

Hey, you're right.

What a stupid idea that someone may enjoy cricket.

go ahead and enjoy it, just know that it won't have any effect on future (real) matches

 

[Swervy]

Aussie fan here..and I enjoyed the game a lot.

If anyone says there is no skill in the batting isnt watching properly. Some of the shots played by England were top notch.

Ultimately, the team that displayed more skill won the game. Australia didnt bowl particularly well...we didnt grasp the concept of getting through the overs , the fielding was shocking, Englands batting was well paced and immaculate. There werent to many proper slogs in there at all..England bowled well, fielded sharply and Australia didnt bat well

The England players are more familiar with this type of cricket and so know how to bat in the game.

The fact of the matter is Twenty20 is here to stay..and although this game in itself doesnt mean much, it will certainly liven things up for the up coming ODI series.

Full credit to England

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

unlucky for this team that the invincibles won all their twenty20 games, huh

Hehe. Well, the remarkable thing about the Invincibles is not just that they were undefeated in the test series (not that rare), but that they didn't lose a match on the tour at all... out of about 35. Since this match counts as a tour match (I guess), Australia have already failed to manage that this time.